coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
8.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Szabadbattyán, Hungary.
9.  On 20 April 1995 the applicant was driving his car and had a collision with a bus. Some passengers suffered injuries. The Székesfehérvár Police inspected the scene of the accident. Subsequently the applicant’s blood alcohol level was tested.
10.  On 6 May 1995 criminal investigations were instituted in which the applicant was accused of having negligently caused a traffic accident. On 12 May 1995 a motor-vehicle expert presented his opinion in the case.
11.  On 22 December 1995 the Fejér County Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred charges. In view of the conclusions of a medical expert, on 29 May 1996 the Public Prosecutor’s Office completed the indictment charging the applicant with having caused permanent disability.
12.  On 15 January 1997 the Székesfehérvár District Court held its first hearing. Subsequently experts were appointed, who presented their opinions on 30 June 1997.
13.  A hearing scheduled for 15 April 1998 was adjourned on account of the applicant’s motion for bias, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 6 July 1998.
14.  On 26 November 1998 the District Court held a hearing. On 10 December 1998 and 28 January 1999, respectively, the applicant and the Prosecutor’s Office proposed that an on-site experiment be carried out.
15.  On 10 February 1999 the District Court adjourned the hearing scheduled for 25 February and ordered an expert institute to reconcile the earlier expert opinions. On 23 February 1999 the applicant submitted his further proposals concerning the taking of evidence.
16.  A hearing scheduled for 20 May 1999 was adjourned on account of the applicant’s illness. On 26 July 1999 the expert institute presented its report.
17.  On 24 November 1999 the District Court adjourned a hearing scheduled for 9 December 1999, since the applicant could not be summoned.
18.  On 13 February 2000 the applicant submitted his further proposals concerning the taking of evidence and provided information on his new address. On 9 June 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s further motion for bias, introduced on 21 February 2000.
19.  On 17 January 2001 the applicant proposed that the investigations be completed and an inspection of the accident scene be held.
20.  A hearing scheduled for 25 January 2001 was adjourned on account of the applicant’s illness.
21.  On 17 May 2001 a hearing took place. The District Court held that, on account of the lapse of time since the accident, the taking of evidence needed to be repeated completely. It decided not to make an on-site inspection until certain witnesses could be heard.
22.  On 16 July 2001 an examination of the applicant’s fitness to drive was ordered. On 13 September 2001 a hearing at the scene of the accident was re-scheduled for 3 October 2001.
23.  On 27 September 2001 the Fejér County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s further motion for bias.
24.  On 3 October 2001 the District Court held a hearing and heard witnesses and experts. On the same day, the scene of the accident was also inspected.
25.  The proceedings are still pending before the District Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Rome.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to I.M.
6.  In a registered letter of 30 April 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 6 October 1987, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 10 February 1988, which was made enforceable on 26 February 1988, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.
9.  On 22 March 1991, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
10.  On 30 April 1991, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 14 June 1991.
11.  On 14 May 1991, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
12.  Between 14 June 1991 and 21 September 1999, the bailiff made thirty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked the Rome District Court to set a new date for the enforcement of the order for possession. The date was set for 19 July 2000.
14.  On 10 July 2001, the tenant spontaneously left the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant were respectively born in 1949, 1941, 1943, 1946 and 1956 and live in Rome.
5.  They are the owners of a flat in Rome, which they had let to M.P., S.P. and L.P.
6.  In a registered letter of 19 June 1991, the applicants informed the tenants that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenants on 5 July 1991, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 18 December 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 November 1992.
9.  On 19 December 1992, the applicants served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.
10.  On 20 January 1993, they informed the tenants that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 March 1993.
11.  Between 5 March 1993 and 2 February 2000, the bailiff made twenty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
12.  In the meantime, on 6 October 1998, one of the applicants, P.C., had made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his son.
13.  On 3 February 2000, the tenants left spontaneously the premises and the applicants recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Livorno.
5.  Her grandmother was the owner of a flat in Livorno, which she had let to I.B.C.
6.  In a registered letter of 6 May 1987, the applicant's grandmother informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 1 January 1988 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  The tenant told the applicant's grandmother that she would not leave the premises and she fell in rent arrears.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 11 July 1989, the applicant's grandmother reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Livorno Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 31 July 1989, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Livorno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 1 January 1991.
10.  On 9 August 1991, the applicant's grandmother died and the applicant inherited the apartment.
11.  On 6 November 1991, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
12.  On 22 January 1992, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 February 1992.
13.  On 12 November 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
14.  Between 19 February 1992 and 3 October 2000, the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  In the meanwhile, on 10 July 1997, the applicant made a second statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
16.  On an unspecified date of June 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Rome.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to C.D.C.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 7 January 1992, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 14 April 1992, which was made enforceable on 24 June 1992, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1995.
8.  On 25 July 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
9.  On 4 September 1995 he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 October 1995.
10.  On 13 October 1996, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his spouse.
11.  Between 5 October 1995 and 21 July 2000, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
12.  On 20 October 2000 the tenant left the premises spontaneously and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Naples.
5.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Naples, which he had let to M. D'A.
6.  In a registered letter of 12 April 1984, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term and asked her to vacate the premises.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 28 April 1984, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 16 July 1984, which was made enforceable on 17 October 1984, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1986.
9.  The tenant objected to the Naples Magistrate decision and informed the applicant that she would not leave the premises.
10.  On 16 July 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
11.  On 17 September 1990, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 4 October 1990.
12.  Between 4 October 1990 and 25 November 1991, the bailiff made three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 13 November 1992, the applicant served a second notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
14.  On 24 December 1992, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 January 1993.
15.  Between 8 January 1993 and 16 September 1993, the bailiff made two unsuccessful attempts to recover possession.
16.  On 16 September 1993 the tenant asked for a suspension of the enforcement proceedings.
17.  On 16 July 1996, the applicant served a third notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
18.  On 2 October 1996, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 October 1996.
19.  Between 10 October 1996 and 4 December 1998, the bailiff made eight unsuccessful attempts to recover possession.
20.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked for a suspension of the enforcement proceedings. The Naples Court of Appeal decided to suspend it until 15 October 1999.
21.  On 9 November 1999, the applicant informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 November 1999.
22.  Between 19 November 1999 and 10 March 2000, the bailiff made four unsuccessful attempts to recover possession.
23.  On 28 February 2002, the applicant served a fourth notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
24.  On 17 April 2002, the applicant informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 May 2002.
25.  On 2 May 2002, pursuant to section 80 of Law no. 388/00, the tenant asked for a suspension of the enforcement proceedings.
26.  On 20 June 2002, the law-decree no. 122 postponed the enforcement of the eviction proceedings until 30 June 2003.
27.  According to the last information submitted by the applicant on 12 September 2003, he had not yet recovered possession of the flat.
5.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Florence.
6.  He is the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to A.B.
7.  In a registered letter of 10 June 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
8.  The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 22 December 1983, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 16 January 1984, which was made enforceable on 19 June 1984, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1984.
11.  On 17 September 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
12.  On 23 October 1987, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 December 1987.
13.  Between 15 December 1987 and 15 March 1999, the bailiff made thirty-two attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 10 September 1999.
15.  On 26 March 2001, the tenant agreed to leave the premises on 31 December 2002.
16.  On 31 December 2002, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
8.  The applicant is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Lębork, Poland.
9.  On 23 May 1990 the applicant acquired the right to a long-term lease of a flat (spółdzielcze lokatorskie prawo do lokalu) in a building owned by the Lębork Housing Co-operative (Spółdzielnia Mieszkaniowa).
10.  On 22 July 1993 the co-operative sued the applicant in the Lębork District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), seeking payment. On 25 October 1993 the court gave judgment and granted the claim. The applicant appealed against this judgment. On 19 January 1994 the Słupsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) amended the first-instance judgment.
11.  Subsequently, the applicant twice requested the Minister of Justice to grant her leave to file an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). Her first request was rejected on 10 October 1994.
12.  On 31 January 1997, upon the applicant’s second request, the Minister of Justice filed a cassation appeal on the applicant’s behalf, contesting the judgment of the Słupsk Regional Court of 19 January 1994.
13.  On 29 April 1997 the Supreme Court quashed both judgments given in the applicant’s case and remitted the case to the court of first instance. It held that the lower courts had committed serious errors of fact and law.
14.  On 28 October 1997 the Lębork District Court joined the applicant’s case with similar proceedings against seven other members of the co‑operative.
15.  On 19 March 1998 the court held a hearing.
16.  On 8 May 1998 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained.
17.  On 9 June 1998 the court exempted the applicant from half of the court fees due. The applicant appealed. On 29 December 1998 the Słupsk Regional Court rejected her appeal.
18.  On 29 February 2000 the trial court ordered that further expert evidence be obtained. On 19 May 2000 the expert submitted his report to the court. On 4 October 2000 the applicant challenged the expert’s opinion of 19 May 2000.
19.  On 5 October 2000 the court held a hearing and listed the next hearing for 17 October 2000.
20.  On 1 March 2002 the District Court gave judgment. On 8 April 2002 the applicant appealed against this judgment.
21.  It appears that the proceedings are pending.
9.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Izmir, Turkey.
10.  On 11 March 1994 the applicant was taken into custody by the officers from the Izmir Security Directorate Anti-Terror branch on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal terrorist organisation, the PKK.
11.  On 17 March 1994 the applicant was brought before the judge at the Izmir State Security Court. Before the court she pleaded not guilty and maintained that she did not accept the statements that she had made at the Security Directorate. She further denied the testimony of a witness, A.A., against her. Subsequently, the court ordered her release on account of insufficient evidence to remand her in custody.
12.  On 7 April 1994 the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed an indictment with the court charging the applicant under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713 (the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1991 as amended) with aiding and abetting the PKK.
13.  On 24 November 1994 the Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced her to three years and nine months' imprisonment. She was further debarred from public service for three years. The court based its judgment on the following evidence: some ammunition found by the police, various weapons and the ballistics reports confirming the applicant's use thereof, invoices, a notebook used for recording expenditures of the PKK, photos of the applicant taken with some PKK militants, the statements made by the applicant at the Security Directorate, the statements made by S.A., A.A., M.T. and F.A. at the Security Directorate, the Public Prosecutor's office and before the court and finally the testimonies of T.T., N.F., A.O., H.K. and B.O., who were being tried by the same court for charges with other offences.
14.  On 25 September 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld the Izmir State Security Court's judgment of 24 November 1994.
15.  On 1 November 1995 the Izmir chief public prosecutor suspended the execution of the applicant's sentence until 28 April 1996 as she had given birth.
9.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Istanbul.
10.  On 30 May 1992 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, the Devrimci-Sol (Revolutionary-Left).
11.  On 3 June 1992 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the latter charging the applicant, under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Articles 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, with aiding and abetting members of an illegal armed organisation.
12.  On 7 September 1993 the Istanbul State Security Court acquitted the applicant of the charges against her for lack of evidence.
13.  On 23 December 1993 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court. The court noted that the applicant had been in charge of communications among members of the Devrimci-Sol and that she had allowed them to organise meetings in her house. It further held that the first instance court had failed to take into account the applicant's confessions and the statements given by witnesses against her at the police station.
14.  On 12 April 1994 the Istanbul State Security Court delivered a judgment identical to the first one. The court noted that the applicant had refuted the confession statements she made in police custody and that the two witnesses had rejected their statements as they had allegedly been made under duress at the police station. The court reiterated that there was insufficient evidence to convict the applicant. It ruled that the applicant should be acquitted.
15.  On 3 October 1994 the Plenary Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu) quashed the Istanbul State Security Court's judgment on the ground that there was sufficient evidence to convict the applicant. The case was referred once again to the Istanbul State Security Court.
16.  On 18 December 1995 the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced her to three years and nine months' imprisonment and debarred her from holding public office for three years. The applicant appealed. Furthermore, she requested a hearing before the Court of Cassation.
17.  On 9 July 1996 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's request for a hearing holding that the request had been introduced out of time. Moreover, it upheld the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court.
6.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Warszawa.
7.  In 1962 the applicant was injured in a train accident. Her injury caused her permanent disability and she was unable to continue her employment.
8.  As from 1963 the applicant was in receipt of a monthly supplementary disability pension from the Central Direction of the State Railways (CDOKP: hereinafter “the State Railways”). By a decision of 15 March 1993 the State Railways reduced the applicant's supplementary pension, considering that she had reached pensionable age. The applicant objected to this decision.
9.  On 16 February 1994 the State Railways lodged a motion with the Warsaw District Court in order to have the amount of the applicant's pension fixed. The court held three hearings, respectively on 10 May, on 7 July and on 26 September 1994.
10.  By a judgment of 6 October 1994 the Warsaw District Court dismissed the claim and ordered the State Railways to pay the pension in the sum which it had hitherto paid her, considering that the applicant's reduced earning power had to be taken into account.
11.  On 23 November 1994 the State Railways lodged an appeal with the Warsaw Regional Court.
12.  By a decision of 19 January 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the judgment of 6 October 1994 and ordered that the case be remitted to the Warsaw District Court for reconsideration.
13.  On 19 September 1995 the first hearing was held before the Warsaw District Court. New expert evidence was ordered to be taken in September 1996. The expert report was submitted to the court in May 1998. The next hearing was held on 12 January 1999, but both the plaintiff's representative and the applicant's legal representative appointed by the court under the legal aid scheme failed to attend.
14.  By a judgment of 4 January 2000 the Warsaw District Court dismissed the appeal of the State Railways and ruled that the applicant's pension should not be reduced.
15.  On 7 April 2000 the State Railways lodged an appeal against this judgment. On 4 July 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the reasoning of the first-instance court.